The cadet success is been by making use of the spare peace time capacity of the armed forces to develop young people.
This makes sense as it allows the retention of our that you wouldn’t need in peace but need very quickly in war.
Unfortunately with things ramping up with Putin, this is removing the spare capacity that cadets would make use of.
But £26,000,000 does not buy you much in defence out of a Budget of £54.6Bn (£54,600,000,000)
For every £1 spent on the ACF over £1,400 is spent on defence.
The crucial fact that is being highlighted is the difference between cost and value. The cadet forces as a whole build better citizens for UK PLC, with the RAFAC out preforming both the ACF and CCF. Having ACF or ATC or SCC who can easier slot into our armed forces or just have a greater understanding of our armed forces, cyber threats and a knowledge of First Aid will benefit the UK if the new cold war warms up a bit.
This is the never-ending problem with beancounters - it’s very easy to work out the black & white (red!) data on a budget sheet, but assessing the “value” of a project is too grey for them = doesn’t compute. They know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing! 
It took ages for MOD to allow projects that would look at “spend to save,” rather than being outside an annual budget limit, e.g. replace all the decrepit metal framed windows in a building for modern, double-glazed units. I did this for the Officers’ Mess at Martham - huge savings on projected energy bills over 5 yrs + the annual savings on the proportion of windows that were painted annually. The “grey” savings were ignored - better living conditions for the occupants, reduced fire risk as everyone was using small electric fires / heaters (more energy too) & far less noise impact when night operations were in progress. However, I did manage to push the plan through. 
Forward thinking companies will always try to factor in a %% of the grey areas, even if they seem to be more subjective than objective. Cadet spending should be like this.
This in spades
I posted about it at the time.
It actually sort of is - the management of macroeconomics being significantly different to those of microeconomics.
Long story short, it’s a political choice to manage national economics the same way we have to managed our household income, and “living within means” is a fallacy at the national and international level.
We would be VERY nieve to think similar scaled cuts are heading the RAFAC way! Foolish to think otherwise.
Does anyone know what the current RAFAC budget is, and how much that has been reduced over a similar period. Also, I wonder what the breakdown of what RAFAC spends it’s money on is?
Some of this was covered in the previous Cmdt’s Town Hall. I can’t link to it now but it’s in another thread.
In broad terms the big ones were HQ functions, including safeguarding, personnel etc, IT, and gliding ops.
IIRC our costs are quite a bit lower than the ACF. Can’t really compare to the Sea Cadets due to their different finding model.
Our Permanent staffing costs must be significantly lower than the ACF from what I understand they have approx 10-15 Permanent Staff per battalion (who also have to be volunteers and required to attend annual camp as per their contract they get VA on top of salary).
I think when DYER was done the acf was most expensive as they were purely public money.
SCC was cheapest to the mix due to less units & funding being mainly non-public
ATC was the most cost effective due to the balance between public & non public.
CCF not included due to their nature
These staff do all of the admin that the volunteers do in the RAFAC. H&S documentation, activity booking, risk assessments, TOPL, range recces at Training areas. Many do the job of the TSAs but at a local level.
Acknowledging concerns raised about the impact of ending the additional SSI grant, Carns revealed that he has directed a review to assess how the MoD can expand cadet activities both in schools and in community settings. “The role and support to the SSI will figure in this review,” he added, indicating that the department is actively exploring ways to address the challenges and ensure long-term sustainability.
The review is expected to provide recommendations on maintaining and enhancing the reach of cadet programmes, further demonstrating the Government’s intent to preserve the vital contributions of these initiatives in building skills, confidence, and discipline among young people.
Good news, if it’s true.
Fully expecting this to devolve into all the single service cadet forces being rolled into the CCF in the name of ‘efficiency’. (May be a good thing, not all change is bad)
Purple cadets are the future!
I honestly see a purple paid staff structure to be a likely positive thing. Especially given how many paid staff the ACF have, compared to us. There are surely massive efficiency gains to be had by combining certain roles. A single service safeguarding and H&S team makes obvious sense, for example.
That would all be well and good if there was such a thing as purple staff, but in reality they’d be either Army or Civil Service.
In effect by using RFCA structures with buildings, the “CCF model” is already there. Everyone into MTP would save on uniform costs. Its whether they keep the separate ACF/ATC branding or if it is merged under Army ranks.
Pros- Permanent staff in place already
Lower uniform costs
Less volunteers to recruit
Larger offering to a cadet experience
Training areas already in place
Cons - Loss of identity (might drive out some)
Initial mix of ACF & ATC will be them and us for a time.
It’s a difficult one, unless it is really needed a status quo for me is the preferred option, I am proud to be a part of the ATC/RAFAC both as a cadet and CFAV and it would be a shame to lose identity. However if it was the case of “the CCF model” or nothing I would rather have “the CCF model” but at least turn it into Army Air Corps Cadets
The CCF has RAF sections, who wear blue uniform and RAF not AAC cap badges.